DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

Pages

Wednesday, 21 October 2015

Back in July, this year, we published a Blog exposing the
Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry for adopting what's known as "THE JERSEY WAY". Where
suspected paedophiles are granted multiple identities at the Inquiry and can give
evidence appearing to be up to three different people. A protection that is NOT
afforded to Victims/Survivors and creates a distorted view of the facts and puts the Victims/Survivors (among others) at a distinct disadvantage.

Yesterday we learnt that the “The Jersey Way” still prevails at
the Inquiry where it looks as though a false history of events is being documented as fact at the
Public Hearing(s).

Counsel to the Inquiry, PATRICK SAAD, opened yesterday's Hearing by reading out a prepared statement. Part of that statement claimed that Andrew Lewis (former Home Affairs Minister) suspended the Chief of
Police (Graham Power QPM) without having read the MET Police Interim Report. This
is a statement of fact from the Child Abuse Inquiry and it is still unclear as to
why this particular “fact” should have been included in Mr. Saad’s opening address at
all? What significance did it have? A question that I asked Angharad Shurmer
(Solicitor to the Inquiry) and one that she was unable, or unwilling, to answer.

Deputy Andrew Lewis.

Why this is suspicious is that the Inquiry Team knows full
well that Andrew Lewis looks to have told Jersey’s Parliament, when informing it that he had
(possibly illegally) suspended the Chief Of Police, that he HAD seen the MET
Police Interim Report.

How do I know that the Inquiry Team knows this? Because when
I e-mailed my original complaint against Deputy Lewis for telling (what I and
many others believe to be) untruths to the States Assembly I copied the Inquiry Team into the e-mail and subsequent e-mails with PPC.

“If the preliminary
report is that damning, Lord knows what the main report will reveal. So my
successor will have an interesting time. The report that I was shown gave me no
doubt at all.”

He added;

"I have read an alarming report
from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”

Brian Napier QC.

Yet in
the Napier Report we have this;

“As
previously has been noted, neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the Interim
Report. Neither did they seek to see it. The reason given was the nature of the
information that was contained therein. It was, said Mr Ogley, a police
document and it was inappropriate that he (or anyone else) should have

access to it. Mr Ogley says that he was told both by
the Attorney General and Mr Warcup that he should not look at the interim
report and neither he nor Mr Lewis did so.”

So
the Inquiry KNOWS that it appears Deputy Andrew Lewis has given, at least two, different
versions of events. So why present only one of them as “fact?” That was another
question I asked Ms. Shurmer which she told me that Andrew Lewis told the
Napier Review he HADN’T seen the MET Interim Report and Patrick SAAD stands by
his statement.

In an e-mail to me Ms. Shurmer wrote;

"I refer to our
discussions earlier this afternoon where you asked me to review the following
section of Patrick Sadd’s opening, where he stated:

‘In November 2008
David Warcup writes to Bill Ogley, Chief Executive, raising concerns about
Operation Rectangle and refers to an interim report by the Metropolitan Police.
Without having seen the Metropolitan Police report, Andrew Lewis now Home
Affairs Minister, formally suspends Graham Power, Chief of Police. Graham Power
never returns to his post.’

I have discussed this
with Patrick and whilst he is aware of your correspondence with the PPC and the
information Mr Lewis provided to the States, the evidence currently available
to the Inquiry supports the statement made by Patrick during today’s opening
i.e. at the time of Graham Power’s suspension Andrew Lewis had not seen the
Metropolitan Report. Amongst other evidence in the Inquiry’s possession, the
Napier Report states at pages 46 to 48 that ‘neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley
saw the interim report. Neither did they seek to see it’ and that Mr Lewis
placed reliance on a summary contained within a letter sent by Mr Warcup to Mr
Ogley on 10 November 2008. There is also further documentary evidence
supporting this which will become apparent following the evidence of Bob Hill
which is to be heard later this week and, as stated by Patrick this morning,
the Inquiry will also be hearing evidence from Andrew Lewis during the course
of this Phase of evidence.

For the avoidance of
doubt, there will be no statement to amend today’s opening."(END)

So a Child Abuse Inquiry who is tasked with gathering evidence and reporting it fairly, and accurately, actually looks to be ignoring evidence and creating a false history, a la State Media, or "The Jersey Way."

The Inquiry quotes "The Party Line" as contained in the Napier Report; "the Napier Report states at pages 46 to 48 that ‘neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Ogley saw the interim report. Neither did they seek to see it’ Yet omits the other Andrew Lewis version told in the island's parliament;"I have read an alarming report from the Metropolitan Police which led me to this decision in the first place.”I, and others, argue that if it was that important for Patrick Saad to make mention of the MET Police Interim Report in his pre-prepared statement, then at least he could/should have included that it was "unclear" as to whether Andrew Lewis had seen it or not.Further evidence exists where Andrew Lewis looks to have inferred that he HAD read the MET Interim Report (which the Inquiry should be aware of) where he stated;
"it was important that a thorough investigation of the allegations made in the Met review was undertaken before any further action was taken in respect of Mr Power’s position. Hence the suspension was an important neutral act. I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report as I am bound by the disciplinary code. (my emphasis)

To which the former Chief of Police replied;

"Interestingly Mr Lewis states “I am not at liberty to disclose the contents of the Met Report.” According to his statement to Wiltshire Police he could hardly do so given that he claims “I never saw the Metropolitan Review Document.” (Paragraph 14.) Again, it is hard to reconcile these two statements."

Readers (and the Child Abuse Inquiry) are encouraged to read more of that exchange (if they haven't already) between the former Police Chief and Deputy Andrew Lewis HERE.As much as the Inquiry is doing good work in some areas it lets itself, and the public, down when ignoring relevant evidence and passing "The Party Line" off as if it's the only line.........."The Jersey Way."

Saturday, 10 October 2015

Online observers cannot have escaped the legend that has become Ronnie Pickering. For those who have not, as yet, been exposed to the latest internet sensation THIS LINK should help, or search Youtube for "Ronnie Pickering."

We are pleased to announce that Ronnie Pickering (or his name) has reached the shores of Jersey and was the subject of a heated debate between Jersey's disgraced Bailiff (unelected speaker of the House) William Bailhache and DEPUTY MONTFORT TADIER in the Island's Parliament this week. There is disagreement as to whether Mr. Pickering attended/would have attended the recent Tory Conference.

We were able to capture the exchange on audio/video and share it here (below) with our readers.

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

Deputy Tadier has said that there are no hard feelings
after the Bailiff, William Bailhache, misunderstood a comment made during a
States Debate in which Deputy Tadier was presenting a Reform Jersey amendment
seeking to reverse some of the cuts to benefits being put forward by the Social
Security Minister, Deputy Susie Pinel.

‘In my speech, I stated that we all look to different
inspirational figures for our moral and political guidance (be they philosophers,
economists or reigious figures). I named two such figures – the American moral
and political philosopher John Rawles
and Jesus Christ, both of whom talked
about the need for social justice and looking after the poor, the sick and
vulnerable.’

‘I used the example of the well known motto “What would Jesus do? (WWJD)” or “what
would Rawles do?”, before stating, rhetorically (and ironically), “Of course, Jesus would be at the Tory Conference
or an IoD dinner.” Before I could finish my train of argument – “Or would he?”
I was interrupted by the Bailiff, who said my comment was offensive and asked
me to withdraw the comment. I did not as the comment was not offensive, but
standard political discourse - as he would have found out had I been allowed to
continue. This was a contravention of my parliamentary privilege and it is an
important principle that elected members be able to express themselves freely
without fear or prejudice.’

Talking about the Bailiff’s intervention, Deputy Tadier
said, ‘The Bailiff is not the Pope, and like all of us, he is fallable. He
simply got the wrong end of the stick on this occasion. Had he followed
Standing Orders to the letter (see below 109
/3 and 4)) he would have asked me to clarify my comments rather than asking
me to retract them, and he would have understood the point I was making.
Thankfully, after the hour’s recess, the Bailiff had obviously thought better
of it and I was able to contiune where I had left off.’

‘I am grateful for the solidarity shown by States Members,
particularly the Chief Minister, who came to my defense, saying he did not
think the comments were offensive, simply a political illustration and maybe a
direct challenge to the Chief Minister’s policies as a Christian.’

‘The whole thing was quite Kafkaesque. I bare no ill
feeling to the Bailiff. I was just slightly frustrated at being impeded in
doing my job, in this case, of robustly fighting the Government’s austerity measures.’

Others have made comment that this is not the first
time that the Bailiff has overstepped the mark into the political, and it is
likely that this latest episode will add to growing calls for the States to be
chaired by someone other than a senior member of the Judiciary.

(1) If the
presiding officer believes that the member of the States speaking has used
offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly words, the presiding
officer shall direct the member speaking to sit down.

(2) If a
member of the States, believing that the member speaking has used offensive,
objectionable, unparliamentary or disorderly words, has, on a point of order,
drawn the attention of the presiding officer to them, the presiding officer
shall direct the member speaking to sit down.

(3) The presiding officer may ask the member who
was speaking to explain

the sense in which he or she used the words.

(4) The presiding officer shall then determine
whether or not the words are

offensive, objectionable, unparliamentary or
disorderly.

(5) If the
presiding officer determines that the words are offensive,

objectionable,
unparliamentary or disorderly, he or she –

(a) shall
direct the member to withdraw the words; and

(b) may direct
the member to apologise.

(6) The member
must withdraw the words and, if so directed, apologise.